Numerical Linear Algebra
where the algebra stops being the arithmetic
Concept

Cholesky — where it appears

The factorisation of a positive definite matrix as LLᵀ, whose growth factor is exactly one and whose only failure is the test for definiteness. It needs no pivot search, half the arithmetic and no growth bound, and its only failure is the square root of a negative number — which is the definiteness test.

Named by 14 essays across 7 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

the matrix, lower triangle408 entriesits Cholesky factor1739 entries · 1331 created→‖A − LLᵀ‖/‖A‖1.4·10⁻¹⁶fill, symbolic1331fill, numeric1331n = 144 · density 3.2% · bandwidth 12same matrix, renumberedthe answer is identical to rounding

The factor is not sparse

A sparse matrix has a factor that is not sparse, and the gap between them is the entire reason iterative methods exist. The entries elimination creates can be counted before any arithmetic runs, from the graph alone.

sparsity · Fill -1-0.582271-0.1645420.2531860.6709151.088641.506370eigenvalue4 negative10 positivecounted before it was formedpositive10negative4at zero0innermost ratio39the zero block is a theoremand so is the count either side of it

The zero that is not a missing entry

A constrained minimisation produces a matrix with a zero block, and the zero is a theorem rather than a sparsity pattern. No pivot order makes it positive definite, no precision changes that, and Cholesky does not fail somewhere on it — it fails at the first constraint row, on a number the problem already contained.

constraint · Saddle-point systems 10⁻⁸10⁻⁷10⁻⁶10⁻⁵10⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹10⁻⁹10⁻⁷10⁻⁵10⁻³10⁻¹10¹ε in Läuchli's matrix (smaller ε, larger κ)relative error in the coefficientsAᵀA exactly singularnormal equationsQRκ from 1.7·10⁸ to 17the cliff is at √u = 2.4·10⁻⁴

The road that squares the problem

The normal equations are the first method every course teaches and the method no library uses. Forming AᵀA squares the condition number, and below ε = √u it does not degrade — it produces a matrix that is exactly singular, from data that was perfectly usable.

leastsquares · Normal equations the matrix43 entriestip eliminated first253 entriestip eliminated last43 entries‖A − LLᵀ‖/‖A‖, tip first1.4·10⁻¹⁶‖A − LLᵀ‖/‖A‖, tip last0dense factor is n(n+1)/2 = 253 · sparse factor is 2n − 1 = 43one row swapped to the endnothing numerical chose between them

Two ends of the same arrow

One matrix, one row moved from the front of the elimination order to the back, and the factor goes from completely dense to no fill at all. Both factorisations are exact to rounding, and nothing numerical chose between them.

sparsity · Fill 051015202530354010⁻¹¹10⁻⁹10⁻⁷10⁻⁵10⁻³10⁻¹iteration‖r‖ / ‖b‖plain CGIC(0) CGwhat the preconditioner didκ(A)48κ(L⁻¹AL⁻ᵀ)5.1‖A − LLᵀ‖/‖A‖0.0832D Laplacian, n = 100√κ ratio predicts 3.07×

Changing the condition number on purpose

Preconditioning is usually introduced as a trick that makes an iteration converge faster. It is not a trick. It is solving a different system with the same solution and a condition number chosen rather than inherited, and the new condition number is computable.

iterative · Preconditioning 10¹10³10⁵10⁷10⁹10¹¹110¹10²10³10⁴condition number of the matrixgrowth factorbound 2^11partial pivotingCholeskyno pivot to gain fromCholesky growth, every κ1Cholesky interchanges0partial pivoting, worst9the bound, 2^112048both eliminations reach the same growthand only one of them had to swap to get there

A factorisation with nothing to pivot for

Cholesky's growth factor is not bounded by one. It is equal to one, at every size and every condition number, and the two-line reason is why the algorithm needs no pivoting at all — not "usually gets away without it". Its only failure is the square root of a non-positive number, which is exactly the test for definiteness, and in floating point that test moves with the precision.

elimination · Cholesky -33-28.2505-23.5009-18.7514-14.0018-9.25229-4.502750eigenvalueQ(μ) ≺ 0one Cholesky, two answersabove the certificate8below it8the gap0.67critical β for this n5.8the spectrum is real by classnot by outcome

Every eigenvalue real, and a test that says so

A quadratic eigenvalue problem has no reason to have real eigenvalues. One class does, as a property rather than an outcome, and the proof is a Cholesky that completes. The boundary of the class has a closed form, and at the boundary the arithmetic loses half its digits with nothing ill conditioned anywhere.

polynomial · Hyperbolic quadratic 110¹10²10³10⁴10⁵10⁶10⁷10⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁶10⁻¹⁵10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹³10⁻¹²10⁻¹¹10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁹10⁻⁸1/(1 − h), the leverage of the removed row‖R̄ᵀR̄ − (G − aaᵀ)‖ / ‖G − aaᵀ‖downdatedrefactorisedat h = 1 − 10⁻⁷κ of the downdated matrix4.3κ of the matrix downdated9.3·10⁶rotation's amplification344downdate residual3.5·10⁻¹⁰a hyperbolic rotation is not orthogonaland that is exactly what it is for

The observation that cannot be removed

Removing a rank-one term from a Cholesky factor needs a rotation that is not orthogonal, and the number under its square root is 1 − h, where h is the leverage of the row being removed. The algorithm's breakdown condition and the statistician's warning are the same quantity, arrived at from opposite ends, and neither field states it in the other's language.

leastsquares · Low-rank update D from PAPᵀ = LDLᵀ — the shaded pairs are 2×2 pivots10⁻⁶0.749······0.749·········1.2·10⁻⁶1.4······1.4·········2.1·10⁻⁶0.549······0.549·········3.6·10⁻⁶0.614······0.614·three rules, one matrix‖PAPᵀ − LDLᵀ‖, blocks5.8·10⁻¹⁷‖PAPᵀ − LDLᵀ‖, diagonal3.1·10⁻¹¹growth, blocks1.3growth, diagonal5·10⁵the zero block is what the problem saysand one rule does not need it to be nonzero

When symmetry is not enough

The matrix [[0, 1], [1, 0]] is symmetric, nonsingular and perfectly conditioned, and there is no diagonal entry to pivot on. Every factorisation restricted to symmetric interchanges and one-by-one pivots fails on it, at any depth of searching, because every entry it could search is zero. The repair is to take two variables at once.

elimination · Cholesky the diagonal of the hat matrix, hᵢ = aᵢᵀ(AᵀA)⁻¹aᵢaverage p/m = 0.20010the leave-one-out residual: eᵢ/(1 − hᵢ), and forty refitsbars: closed form · dots: refitted without that pointone number, two fieldsΣ hᵢ, exactly p10largest leverage0.5closed form against refits8.9·10⁻¹³1 − h of the first row0.5y appears in the residualand nowhere in the leverage

Influence is decided before the data

The diagonal of the hat matrix sums to the number of columns and the response appears nowhere in it, so a fit has exactly p units of influence to hand out among m observations. The same row at h = 0.5 is a ten-fold outlier on one design and a boundary case on another, and which of those it is was settled before a single measurement was taken.

leastsquares · Leverage 22.539343.078693.618034.157384.6967210⁻¹110¹10²stiffness damping βoverdamping marginβ* = 3.23607two routes to a boundaryclosed form β*3.2by certificate3.2difference4.7·10⁻¹³bisection steps44a factorisation that completesand a sine, agreeing to twelve digits

A class a longer chain takes away

Symmetry survives a bigger problem. Hyperbolicity does not. The damping that certifies a chain of seven masses is refused by a chain of eight, the damping the class demands grows like the length without bound, and the certificate has to be earned again at every size — which costs one Cholesky, and the alternative is a proof quietly inherited from a smaller problem.

polynomial · Hyperbolic quadratic 10¹10⁴10⁷10¹⁰10¹³10¹⁶10⁻¹⁷10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²10¹κ(B)relative error, and asymmetryvia B⁻¹Avia Choleskyasymmetry of B⁻¹Au · κ(B)against a spectrum known exactlyslope, via B⁻¹A0.92slope, via Cholesky0.98worst ratio between them2.3asymmetry of B⁻¹A1.1the symmetry claim is trueand it is not about the accuracy

Two matrices and one problem

Ax = λBx is what a finite element model, a structural vibration and a constrained optimisation actually produce, and it is not the one-matrix problem with a change of variables. Everybody is told not to form B⁻¹A because it is not symmetric. That is true, the departure from symmetry is about one, and it is not what decides the accuracy.

spectra · Pencil 012345678-7-5-3-11357conjugate gradient steppᵀAp ⁄ pᵀpλₘᵢₙ = -0.1positive: a step existsnegative: a certificate existsone matrix, two questionsstep it turns at6quotient there-0.027share of λₘᵢₙ recovered0.27λₘᵢₙ, by construction-0.1MINRES steps on the same system37the division that cannot be doneis the answer to a different question

The division that cannot be done

Conjugate gradients divides by pᵀAp at every step, and on a matrix that is not positive definite that number can be zero or negative. The guard against it has been here from the first essay and described it as a failure. In the method that made conjugate gradients famous it is the single most valuable object the iteration can produce, and it costs six matrix–vector products.

iterative · Breakdown 10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹1024681012size of the negative eigenvalue, −λproducts before the test firesharder to find, and milder8 spectra, n = 50products at the largest λ3products at the smallest10smallest share of λ recovered0.14largest0.34the one that hidesis the one that matters least

A proof that does not ask how large the matrix is

Proving a Hessian indefinite costs three matrix–vector products when the negative eigenvalue is 3 and nine to eleven when it is a thousandth, and that pair of numbers barely moves across a fourfold range in n. The factorisation that settles the same question costs a third of n³, which grows by a factor of sixty-four over the same range.

iterative · Breakdown

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Condition numberIndefinite matrixConjugate gradientsEigenvaluesExact ground truthFill-inGaussian eliminationInertiaSparsitySymmetric indefiniteCertificateConstrained minimisation

All concepts